Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (12607)	2/22/1998 5:25:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Scott, Re -- That is what the "higher layer" object routing does ... it replaces end-to-end packet routing with point-to-point object routing. You are going back to before the OSI model, and starting from scratch again. Not very likely to happen and benefits/tradeoffs unknown. It is very likely that networks (Routers switches, etc..) will evolve into understanding "higher level" objects, but thats way into the future. Heck they are only now working on layer 3, after so many years. Stockman

To: Scott C. Lemon who wrote (12607)	2/26/1998 2:40:00 AM
From: Clare	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Scott, how do you define higher-layer object routing? Is it source route bridging or something? Hasn't that solution been shown to be unable to scale? Imagine each end-station having to send out explorer packets to find the route to a destination, and then encode the instructions into every packet they send. And because the complete routing information is in every packet header, the switching can't be as fast because each switch has to locate the position the instructions relevant to itself inside the header. IMHO point-to-point object routing requires connection-oriented setup and teardown, and doesn't scale. Layer 3 routing is hierarchical in nature and reduces complexity for end-stations, as well as intermediary routers. Hierarchical systems, like telephone numbers, post office addressing/zip codes, and IP addresses scale precisely because an end-station does not know nor has to care about the exact route to a destination. In anycase, you cannot eliminate lower layer switching unless you were directly connected.